Volume 10, Number 1

The Frying Pan Never Looked So Good

Mark Hartwig

We knew the thermodynamics issue was controversial. What we
didn't know was just how controversial it really was...

As you may recall, our last edition of Origins Research
(9:2) featured a three-way debate between John Patterson, Tracy
Walters, and Peter Gordon on the subject of thermodynamics and
origins. When we originally published this debate, we were not
sure whether readers would be much interested in the topic. It
soon became clear, however, that we had evoked not only a great
deal of interest, but a good deal of emotion, as well. Almost
immediately, we were inundated with correspondence and articles
addressing different aspects of this issue. And we quickly realized
that a follow-up edition on thermodynamics would be appropriate.

In this edition of Origins Research, we have attempted
to pull together those articles and letters which address the
widest range of significant issues in this controversy. As the
reader will discover, this range is quite broad -- as is the range
of opinion. Despite this diversity, several recurrent issues seemed
to manifest themselves:

Impossibility of Evolution under the Second Law. this,
of course, has been the primary issue in our debate over thermodynamics.
Surprisingly, most of our writers -- creationists and evolutionists
alike -- seem to agree that evolution is not intrinsically impossible
under the second law of thermodynamics. Nonetheless, as creationists
Robert Gange, Walter Bradley, and Robert Kofahl persuasively argue,
the bottom line still seems to be that the second law of thermodynamics
makes evolution and abiogenesis highly improbable.

Supernatural Origins. Along with the above, another
major issue in this debate has been the question of whether the
second law of thermodynamics demands a supernatural explanation
for origins. Here, of course there is wide disagreement, with
some arguing for supernatural origins and others against. Probably
the best response to this question, however, was articulated by
Robert Gange, who reminds us this is a philosophical issue rather
than a scientific one. As Gange points out, calling something
"unknown" is no more (or less) scientific than calling
it "supernatural." In either case, the choice is a personal
one, grounded on the individual's world view.

Energy Conversion. Unfortunately, another recurrent
theme has been the question of whether thermal energy can be converted
into mechanical energy. Much controversy was generated in response
to the following statement by Walters:

...some forms of energy do not convert to other forms
"of their own accord." An example of this is thermal
energy, which cannot be converted into mechanical energy unless
a capable engineer designs a system that includes a boiler, turbine,
heat exchangers, etc. And even then, if a temperature difference
does not exist between the two reservoirs, the thermal energy
can never be converted to mechanical energy.

As Walters admits, the wording of this example was misleading.
Despite the many objections to this example, however, the fact
still remains that certain kinds of energy conversion or "work"
are enormously improbable in the absence of intelligent intervention.
One important example of this is discussed at length by Bradley:
namely, the formation of DNA and proteins via condensed polymerization
reactions.

Analogies and Evidence. One of the hallmarks of this
debate has been an abundance of analogies. Sadly, many of these
analogies have not been entirely relevant. When all is said and
done, snowflakes, hurricanes, ram pumps, and spinoidal decomposition
have little to do with evolution or the origin of life. Furthermore,
as Francis Arduini argues in his letter, the issue cannot be decided
by analogy but must be resolved on the basis of empirical evidence.
Bradley shows that some useful frameworks have already been laid
by Thaxton et al.[1] and Prigogine et al.[2]. But the empirical work still remains to
be done.

Information Increase. A final recurrent theme in our
thermodynamics debate has been the question of whether information
can increase in a closed system. Several "examples"
of informational increase are offered by our writers. However,
many of these examples (i.e. microbes in a warm aquarium, mice
in a greenhouse, the growth of organisms, the formation of snowflakes,
etc.) reflect a fundamental and widespread misunderstanding of
what information really is. For they fail to account for the incredible
redundancy that characterizes these systems (see our tutorial
on information). In fact, Gange shows that the formation of snowflakes
is actually an example of information loss. Furthermore,
although informational increases are certainly not prohibited
under the second law, they become increasingly improbable as they
increase in magnitude. And as some of our authors point out, the
likelihood of producing even simple proteins from their more basic
constituents (in the absence of a living system) is outrageously
small.

Although the topic of thermodynamics and origins always seems
to generate a good deal of heat, we hope that this issue of Origins
Research will generate a bit of light on an otherwise obscure
and often misunderstood topic. Actually, you will probably learn
more than you ever wanted to know. So, with this edition we say
goodbye to the thermodynamics issue for awhile.

Censorship

Speaking of heat, I am sure many of you have at least heard
about the February issue of Omni Magazine. If you don't
already have a copy, you should make every effort to get your
hands on one. It would be the perfect companion volume to your
copy of George Orwell's 1984. Indeed, Omni's articles
on "censorship" take the meaning of newspeak
to stunning new heights (we're talking ozone, folks).

All humor aside, Omni's February issue exemplifies the
kind of attitude that initially sparked the creation of Students
for Origins Research. For this reason, we are particularly pleased
to publish an open letter to Omni
that was written by Chris Foreman. We believe Foreman's response
captures the spirit of SOR's own position, and we join him in
his insistence that scientific issues be decided by evidence rather
than ridicule.

Mega Culpa

In the last issue of Origins Research (9:2), we published
a review of Charles Hummel's book, The Galileo Connection,
and enthusiastically offered it as a selection in our book catalog.
Unfortunately, in our enthusiasm for the book, we overlooked the
fact that one entire chapter was devoted to an exegesis of Genesis
1. Accordingly, our endorsement was not in keeping with the editorial
policy of Origins Research, which is to focus on the scientific
and philosophical issues surrounding the creation/evolution debate.
We still recommend the book for its treatment of the history of
science, but we will not be carrying it in our catalog.

However, because we feel that the history of science is important
to the present debate, we are replacing this selection with the
book God and Nature. Edited by David Lindberg and Ronald
Numbers, this volume covers the relationship between Christianity
and science from the early Christian Church to the 20th century.
From a recent review by Francisco J. Ayala:

God and Nature deserves only praise. It covers all
the major hallmarks in the intertwined histories of science and
Christianity with as much detail as could possibly be expected
in 500 pages. The balance given to different personages can hardly
be faulted; the scholarship and documentation are admirable (but
not in the least obtrusive); the style is clear and often crisp...No
better book exists on the subject.

What more can we say? SOR is proud to offer this book as one
of our selections.

While we're on the topic of book reviews, be sure to catch
Greg Wilkerson's review of Robert Gentry's new book, Creation's
Tiny Mystery. Despite some reservations about Gentry's conclusions,
Wilkerson believes that his book makes some important scientific
contributions -- and also provides a unique perspective on the
Arkansas creation trial.

Happy Birthday to Us

Whether you realize it or not, this issue marks the 10th anniversary
of Students for Origins Research. Needless to say, those who have
been a part of this organization from the beginning are particularly
gratified at having reached this milestone. If you want to know
more about SOR, what we stand for, and where we intend to go in
the future, then you'll definitely want to read Dennis
Wagner's article in this issue. Enjoy!